>
Pat Hayes writes:
> 2. Using Lynn's terminology,
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0301.html)
> RDF assertions in actual use on the Web are intended to be part of
> larger 'systems' of meaning in at least two senses: a formal system
> of meaning, defined by the model-theoretic semantic specification(s)
> of RDF and any semantic extensions (such as RDFS and OWL) which may
> be in use, and a social system defined by norms of use, legal
> obligations, and generally by what Lynn calls "affective semantics,
> ie what work the terms can do in the world". Clearly, the latter
> does not admit of the kind of mathematical description that is
> available to define the former, and also unlike the former, cannot
> itself be constrained or even precisely delineated by any working
> group or standards body.
Just to clarify, those are "effective" semantics, not "affective"
semantics....i.e., semantics based on the work they do, not based on
how one feels about them.
Otherwise, I'm basically on board with that message :o)